The effects of interference on recognition of haptic pictures in blindfolded sighted participants: The modality of representation of haptic information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holtby, R. C. & D’Angiulli, A. (2012). The effects of interference on recognition of haptic pictures in blindfolded sighted participants: The modality of representation of haptic information. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 112–118. Haptic picture recognition was tested in 36 undergraduate students to determine whether haptic representations are visual or multi‐modal. Participants explored target haptic pictures and were asked to recognize the target from three alternatives. Each participant completed eight control and eight interference trials in visual, lexical and tactile recognition modalities. For interference, participants were assigned to either an articulatory suppression (repeat “the” at a constant rate) or a visual interference (watch a visual display) condition, to prevent recoding into a verbal or visual code. The results showed that accuracy was higher at control compared to interference trials and for tactile compared to lexical recognition. Additionally, lexical and tactile recognition decreased with articulatory suppression whereas only tactile recognition decreased with visual interference. These findings suggest that haptic pictures may be represented by coordinating visual and verbal codes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".